1. Field of Invention
This invention relates to golf club putters, specifically to an improved putter head.
2. Prior Art
The putter is the most important club for a golfer. On average, the putter is used on 40% of the strokes taken by a golfer during a round of golf, twice as much as the second most used club, the driver. Most putter heads are manufactured with a rigid appearance, percussion, balance, length, width, height, loft, lie and weight, so the golfer must learn to conform to the putter. There is a need for a putter that conforms to the golfer, a putter that can be customized to fit the golfer's preferences. It is also important that the putter can be manurfactured cost effectively so as to be affordable for the average golfer. A putter head design that is symmetrical and simple in construction will allow for maximum manufacturing efficiency.
In Golf Magazines, May 1995 issue, in the article “How to Pick a Putter”, pages 100–101, David T. Pelz lists the most important attributes in choosing a putter—in order by most important: 1)shaft length (putter head design must be able to accomodate the full range of putter shaft lengths from conventional to mid/belly to long to side saddle), 2) shaft angle [lie], 3) balance [peripheral weighting], 4) alignment aides, 5) weight, 6) grip(not relevant to putter head design), 7) head-twisting at impact [torque], 8) repetitive soling (returns to same position when soled), 9) appearance, and 10) feel [percussion/distance control]. In the past year data has been developed to move items 7 and 10 even higher on the list. Back weighted putter heads have been developed to increase moment of intertia such that head twisting at impact is greatly reduced. And, low loft, low weight location putter heads have been developed to maximize putting stroke smoothness and hence distance control.
Golf is a game of accuracy and repeatability of which alignment and distance control play a very significant part. When a golfers use the standard alignment aids on putter heads (lines, circles, etc), many tend to aim right or left of the target. When the golfer performs the putting strike, their brain makes a subconscious correction by either opening or closing the striking face at impact. This is further aggravated by putter head designs that readily twist (torque) if the ball is contacted even slightly off center on the putter face.
As the golfer nears the target, the hole, less correction is used; but, in essence the golfer has a slightly different putting stroke for every distance.
Rarely does a golfer have a putt that is perfectly straight so some curvature must be allowed for on nearly all putts. In order to correctly visualize the proper starting direction for a putt the golfer must decide the speed with which to roll the putt because there will be many different possible correct combinations of speed and direction. The speed relates to going a certain distance and therefore distance control is essential for the golfer to achieve the planed speed on a given putt.
A variety of golf putter designs have been developed to improve putter face alignment and/or improve movement control of a putter face by giving visual feedback to the golfer relative to alignment of the putter face before and during the putting stroke.
Most recent prior art apparatus has incorporated visual aids in an attempt to help the golfer align the putter face on the proper line. These aids have included lines, dots, symbols, circles, discs and other markings.
But these approaches have been to some degree confusing because they introduce either curves or conflicting size items relative to the size of the golf ball and they don't provide any significant assistance in visualizing the actual forward and backward path of the putter head.
Most recent prior art apparatus has mounted the putter shaft either into the putter face itself or into a connecting bar, rod, etc attached directly to the putter face. This has interferred with the golfers ability to clearly see the golf ball and putter face/alignment elements for the purpose of aligning the putter towards the intended starting line for the putt.
Most recent prior art apparatus has also placed a portion of the putter head mass behind the face of the putter in order to improve the pendulum flow of the stroke to keep the putter more on-line during the actual stroke. Also, the moving of some of the mass behind the putter face has been accompanied by also concentrating the mass below the center line of the putter face to improve the roll characteristics of the ball after impact. Finally, the mass has been moved as far back as regulations allow in order to maximize the moment of inertia thereby reducing the tendency of the putter head to twist during the backward and forward stroke, and on off-center hits. Conventional mounting of the putter shaft to the putter head has limited the ability to maximize the above improvements. Prior art has positioned the hands of the golfer even with the club face such that at the point of impact the hands and the ball are in the same basic position. This has required that the hands “release” the putter head at the point of impact to avoid opening or closing the club face and the corresponding misdirection of the ball.
All putter heads have some type of alignment aid. The most common is perpendicular squaring, when an elongated-embodied element extends perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the putter head, analogous to lining up a tennis ball with a racket. Of those, most use singular squaring, having only one embodied element.
U.S. Pat. No. 2,222,534 to Howard T. Harris (1940) discloses a putter with two plates. Multiple elements are easier to align than one element because the brain can use multiple reference points for aligning the putter head. Even with multiple elements, perpendicular squaring is not as easy to align as parallel squaring, when an elongated-embodied element extends parallel to the longitudinal axis of the putter head, analogous to lining up a billiard ball with a cue.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,529,302 to Moctezuma Rodriguez (1996) discloses a putter head that uses one slender-elongated rod for parallel squaring. the single rod has the benefit of creating a free-standing embodied sight line which is also easier to align than painted lines on a thck element because the golfer can see the turf beside the element and decide how the element should travel over the turf, creating a relational effect. Even though singular parallel squaring improves alignment, it ususally fails to provide peripheral weighting, when a putter's toe and heel areas weigh more than its center. Peripheral weighting is desired because it increases moment of inertia to reduce putter head twisting (torque) on impact with the ball.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,754,976 to David Pelz (1988) discloses a putter head that improves peripheral weighting by using a thick-elongated rectangle. The rectangle is also capped by a plate but the plate is rendered nonexistent by the rectangle's thickness which is thicker than the golf ball and the central focus area. The thickness weakens the embodied sight line and parallel squaring. This is an example where improving peripheral weighting inevitably weakened parallel squaring, creating an ostensibly inverse relationship between the two.
U.S. Pat. No. 3,873,094 to Alexander Sebo and Leroy H. Despins (1975) discloses multiple parallel squaring elements using three elongated cylinders in a transparent plate. Since longer elements are easier to align than shorter elements, the relatively short length of the cylinders, and the position of the hosel between the cylinders, weakens parallel squaring. Additional embodiments of this patent use webs or bridges to conect the short cylinders which further impedes the embodied sight line and weakens parallel squaring.
The next step in the progression is putters that have a least one perpendicular and one parallel squaring element in one design.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,080,365 to Frank J. Winchell (1992) discloses a putter head that uses an elongated rod as the parallel squaring element and an elongated plate as the perpendicular squaring element. The putter head has a plan view silhouette resembling the letter ‘T’. This design suffers for the ostensibly inverse relationship between perpheral weighting and parallel squaring. Additional embodiements of this patent address perpheral weighting by changing the shape of the rod into a triangular framework with weighted-knobs at each corner. The change inevitably weakens parallel squaring because it creates non-linear plan view interference from protuberances, cavities and transversing elements.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,470,070 to Christopher J. Bendo (1995) discloses another putter in the shape of a ‘T’ where the ends of the perpendicular squaring element terminate into nodules. The majority of the putter head is still located in the parallel squaring element. The sinuous body weakens perpendicular and parallel squaring. Again, improving peripheral weighting inevitably weakened parallel squaring.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,580,058 to Brian E. Coughlin (1996) discloses a putter head with one elongated plate for perpendicular squaring and two elongated rods at the peripheries for parallel squaring. The putter head's main objective is to place the rods out of the central focus area, weakening parallel squaring. Again, improving peripheral weighting inevitably weakened parallel squaring.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,253,667 to Jack L. Clark and William T. Naud (1981) discloses a putter head with an elongated rectangular midsection with extending webs that give the putter head a plan view silhouette resembling the letter ‘H’. This design also suffers for the ostensibly inverse relationship between peripheral weighting and parallel squaring. Its midsection is too thick to be effective for parallel squaring.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,275,412 to Stuart W. Innes (1994) discloses a putter head with a long front and sole plates and a short back plate. Three tiny rungs bridge the front plate with the back plate to create multiple parallel squaring elements. The tiny size of the rungs weakens the embodied sight lines, and the position of the sole plate beneath the rungs eliminates the relational effect of a free-standing embodied sight line.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,628,694 to O.Connor, Jr. (1997) discloses a practice putter head with a plan view silhouette in the shape of a hollow rectangular-oval. Inside the hollow are three tiny rungs for longitudinal alignment on a rug painted with three corresponding lines. The tiny size of the rungs combined with deltoid ends, and the position of the rungs near the bottom of the deep rectangular-oval, weakens parallel squaring.
Frame design putter heads provide both multiple perpendicular and parallel squaring elements in one design.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,010,958 to Steven K. Long (1997) discloses a frame design putter head where multiple rods are parallel, perpendicular and angled to the longitudinal axis of the putter head. The putter head's primary feature, weighted square knobs at the corners of a square frame, combined with angled and sinuous internal rods, creates interference that weakens both parallel and perpendicular squaring. The center rod is too thin and sinuous, and the gaps between the longitudinal rods, though prototypical of peripheral weighting, are much too large—over twice the width of the longitudinal rods—to be effective for parallel squaring. The lack of a center rod in additional embodiments further widens the gap between rods. Design Pat. No. 231,373 to Richard Pavelle (1974) discloses a frame putter head with five plates. Two lateral plates are used as perpendicular squaring elements, and three longitudinal plates are used as parallel squaring elements. The center longitudinal plate is too thin, and the gaps between the longitudinal plates, though prototypical of peripheral weighting, are much too large—over twice the width of the longitudinal plates—to be effective for parallel squaring. The smooth connections between the plates, and the lack of extending webs, obscures the borders between lateral and longitudinal plates which weakens perpendicular and parallel squaring. This design doesn't provide optimal peripheral weighting since the plates are composed of the same material throughout.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,993,324 to Alex R Gammil (1999) discloses a frame design putter head using plates and rods arranged to provide perpindicular and parallel squaring. However, peripheral weighting is weakened due to the center (front to back) location of the putter shaft which reduces the moment arm for maximizing moment of inertia. This centered location balances the front and back weight such that the stroke must be level, thus preventing improving roll by being able to strike the ball with a slightly rising stroke which only an unbalanced front to back weight ratio can offer. The narrow spacing recommended between the longitudinal rods further limits the achievable peripheral weighting. The same narrow spacing limits using the longitudinal rods for proper putter face and ball alignment during setup. And, in the embodiment with the putter shaft attaching to a center longitudinal rod, the parallel aligment advantage of the rod (like a pool cue) is weakened because the rod attaches to the front plate thereby eliminating the relational effect of a free-standing embodied sight area.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,827,130 to Rafael F. Jimenez and Gregory L. Jimenez (1998) discloses a “tail heavy” putter head design which uses disproportionate weighting in the heel versus the toe of the putter head to counter act twisting tendencies during the putting stroke. This use of the term “tail heavy” is not related to having a significant rearward weight distribution in order to achieve improved roll.
There is still the need for a putter head that optimizes alignment and performance, a putter that can help the golfer setup up correctly and execute the putting stroke correctly with maximum consistency.